Application of the Self-Organisation Approach in a Transport-Related Social Exclusion Model

  • Joseph Cho-yam Lau


Among large cities in China (e.g., Shanghai, Guangzhou, Wuxi and Hong Kong), the conventional urban transport planning model has been widely adopted for urban transport planning (Wang et al. 2012; Pei and Fan 2010; Meyer and Miller 2001). The major goal of the model is to develop a plan for an efficient, balanced transport system for the rapid urban expansion of cities. The model involves four-step sub-models to project future traffic and is the basis for determining the need for new road capacity, transit service changes and land-use development. The model is based on transport systems, the characteristics of the population and the built environment to stimulate all travel behaviours of travellers.


  1. Andersson M, Brundell-Freij K, Eliasson J (2017) Validation of aggregate reference forecasts for passenger transport. Transp Res A 96:101–118Google Scholar
  2. Bliemer MCJ, Raadsen MPH, Brederode LJN, Bell MGH, Wismans LJJ, Smith MJ (2017) Genetics of traffic assignment models for strategic transport planning. Transp Rev 37(1):56–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Flyvbjerg B, Holm MKS, Buhl SL (2005) How (in)accurate are demand forecasts in public works projects? J Am Plan Assoc 71(2):131–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fuchs C (2003) Structuration theory and self-organization. Syst Pract Action Res 16(2):133–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Giddens A (1981) A contemporary critique of historical materialism. Vol. 1. Power, property and the state. Macmillan, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Guan J, Xu C (2018) Are relocatees different from others? Relocatee’s travel mode choice and travel equity analysis in large-scale residential areas on the periphery of megacity Shanghai, China. Transp Res A 111:162–173Google Scholar
  8. Hägerstrand T (1970) What about people in regional science? Reg Sci Assoc Pap 24(1):7–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Healey P (1997) Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. UBC Press, VancouverCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Healey P (1998) Collaborative planning in a stakeholder society. Town Plan Rev 69(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kim HM, Kwan MP (2003) Space-time accessibility measures: a geo-computational algorithm with a focus on the feasible opportunity set and possible activity duration. J Geogr Syst 5(1):71–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lucas K (2012) Transport and social exclusion: where are we now? Transp Policy 20:105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McNally MG (2000) Four step model. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Irvine, CAGoogle Scholar
  14. Meyer D, Miller EJ (2001) Urban transport planning: a decision-oriented approach. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Morrison K (2005) Structuration theory, habitus and complexity theory: elective affinities or old wine in new bottles? Br J Sociol Educ 26(3):311–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pan HX (2006) Shanghai from dense mono-center to organic poly-center urban expansion, Urban Environmental Management Project of IGES, Department of Urban Planning, Tongji University, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  17. Pan H, Shen Q, Liu C (2011) Transit-oriented development at the urban periphery: insights from a case study in Shanghai, China. Transp Res Rec 2245:95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pei K, Fan D (2010) Passenger flow forecast for urban rail transit based on extended four-step model in Wuxi, China. J Express Rail Traffic 23(5):57–61. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  19. Preston J, Rajé F (2007) Accessibility, mobility and transport-related social exclusion. J Transp Geogr 15:151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rauws W, De Roo G, Zhang S (2016) Self-organisation and spatial planning: an editorial introduction. Town Plan Rev 87(3):241–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Sen A (1980) Equality of what? Choice, welfare and measurement (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 1997 [Originally published in The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol. I, by the University of Utah Press and Cambridge University Press, 1980]Google Scholar
  23. Sen A (1984) Resources, values and development. Oxford, Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  24. Sen A (1992) Inequality reexamined. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Sen A (2000) Social exclusion: concept, application and scrutiny. Social development papers no 1. Office of Environment and Social Development, Asian Development Bank, ManilaGoogle Scholar
  26. Shanghai Statistics Bureau (2017) Shanghai statistical year book 2017, Shanghai Municipal Government (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  27. United Nations (2016) Identifying social inclusion and exclusion. In: Leaving no one behind: the imperative of inclusive development, report on the social situation 2016. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York, pp 17–28Google Scholar
  28. Wang D, Gan D, Zhu C, Lu X (2012) A research on the relationships between suburban spatial planning and railway traffic planning in Shanghai. J City Plan 1:17–22. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  29. Zacharias J (2012) Resisting motorization in Guangzhou. Habitat Int 36:93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Cho-yam Lau
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Hong KongHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations